Political correctness properly applied is beneficial. Purely racist, sexist and hateful speech should be corrected. However, for the most part, it has gone way overboard and has now become a power trip of one group attempting to silence another group. Intelligent discussion is negated as one sides hurt feelings is used as a weapon to lynch those who disagree. As the classic quote says: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” Below is the best summary I have found of the drawbacks and damage done by the misuse of political correctness, followed by what could very well be the top five examples.
Political correctness has failed because:
“--It has
not changed the hearts and minds of people. So instead of being obvious, hate
and discrimination goes underground and are hidden from public eyes.
--This
hidden discrimination and hate is harder to track, making it harder to
eradicate.
--It is too
focused on the words uttered and the color of skin of the speaker, and not
focused enough on the intentions of the speaker.
--It is
often used to prevent logical discussion of a topic, by shutting down opponents
by accusing them of being hateful, racist or bigots, even when that is not the
case.
--It is
often used to discourage certain social groups from talking about certain
topics at all, which prevents an open dialog between social groups, and perpetuates
racist/racialism.”
New York
Imposes $125,000 Fine For Speaking Politically Incorrect Words
“The New York City Commission on Human Rights recently announced that
employers, landlords and other professionals are required to use a transgender
person’s preferred pronoun ‘regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at
birth.’ The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission similarly determined that
failing to use a person’s preferred pronoun could violate federal
anti-discrimination laws.
“Though these mandates may seem like acts of civility, they in effect
impose ideas about gender identity on speakers. Requiring people to voice
beliefs that they do not hold, or even understand, is a flagrant and
unacceptable violation of the freedom of speech…….
“The notion that the state can now control language is reminiscent of ‘Newspeak,’
the fictional language in the dystopian classic ‘1984.’ Taking a page from
Orwell, the Big Apple actually requires speakers to use the invented
gender-free pronoun ‘ze,’ a word that does not appear in five different
dictionaries I checked. A future version of this regime could potentially
outlaw gendered pronouns altogether, so as to accommodate gender-fluid
individuals. Taken to its natural conclusion, this effort to promote tolerance
is frighteningly intolerant……
“New York City now throws away that carrot and wields a stick: If you do
not immediately express a view of the world you disagree with, the government
will impose a $125,000 fine.”
PBS Editor
Fired For Saying “Not Bad”
“Hugh Heckman, former editor for PBS NewsHour, has sued his former
employers over his termination, which he alleges came two days after he
referred to Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex as ‘not bad.’ Heckman claims
he was fired as a result of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law because a
similar comment by a female colleague about a man wasn't subject to
investigation or discipline.
“According to the complaint filed in the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Heckman, an at-will employee, was working on a story
about the British Royal Family in November 2017 when he viewed a photo of
Markle. To his male colleague next to him, Heckman said 'not bad' . . . in a
low tone of voice.
“This comment was overheard by a female colleague 20 feet away, who
remarked that Heckman wasn’t abiding by the principles of the recent sexual
harassment training session the employees had attended …….. One of the female
co-workers reported Heckman's comment to executive producer Scott Davis, who,
two days later, told Heckman he was ‘regretfully’ terminating his employment,
offering ‘this latest incident’ as a reason.”
Princeton
University Abolished Use of Word “Man”
“Princeton University is banning the word ‘man’ in what it calls an
effort to foster a more ‘inclusive community’ — a policy that conservative
critics contend is aligned with its campus politics that caters to the LGBT
community. The acclaimed Ivy League university is readjusting its accepted
campus terms to do away words that could cause sensitive students, faculty
members or school administration any bit of discomfort due to their gender
preference…….
Here are a number of terms listed under Princeton’s ‘Generic Terms and
Expressions’ sheet:
--Don’t use: “average man” … Use: “average person” or “ordinary person”
--Don’t use: “best man for the job” … Use “best person for the job”
--Don’t use” layman” … Use “layperson” or “non-specialist”
--Don’t use “man” (when referring to humanity) … Use “human beings,”
“humanity,” “humans,” “individuals” or “people”
--Don’t use “man and wife” … Use “spouses” or “partners”
--Don’t use “man hours” … Use “person hours” or “work hours”
--Don’t use “mankind” … Use “humankind”
--Don’t use “man-made” … Use “artificial,” “handmade,” “manufactured” or
“synthetic”
--Don’t use “manpower” … Use “personnel,” “staff workers” or “workforce”
--Don’t use “to man” …. Use “to operate” or “to staff”
--Don’t use “workmanlike” … Use “skillful”
Who knew
that animals were hypersensitive?
“Would you
call yourself a pet owner? The Journal of Animal Ethics would disagree.
In 2011, its editors decided that the word ‘pets’ was insulting to animals.
They tried to replace the entire spectrum of words related to owning a cat or
dog. The result was a diktat to call pets ‘animal companions’ and owners ‘human
carers’.
“Amusingly,
they also tried to squash out animal-based idioms from the English language. So
‘drunk as a skunk’ was forbidden to their writers, on the basis that skunks
aren’t alcoholics, and to imply otherwise is derogatory. ‘Eat like a pig’ was
also swapped out, as was ‘sly as a fox.’ Their idea even extended to wild
animals, who the journal insisted had to be referred to as ‘free-living’ to
avoid offense. We can’t help but wonder how the ‘free-living’ animals managed
to tell them they were offended in the first place.”
PC Police
at the University of California - Berkeley
Administrators at this university are attempting to force students to be
more politically correct. Just two examples:
Saying, “There is only one race, the human race,” is offensive because
it denies “the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and
history.”
“America is the land of opportunity,” implies that “People of color are
lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.”
An excellent rebuttal from The
Daily Beast:
“During the ’60s, students at Berkeley understood that a campus climate
of absolute tolerance for free speech was a precondition to successfully
combating injustice in the UC system and elsewhere. Liberal and libertarian
students and professors fought the administration for the right to hold
political rallies, opt out of loyalty oaths, and advocate against the Vietnam
War. They trusted that their ideas would win out in the court of public
opinion, and only needed to establish that they had the legal right to utter
such ideas.
“Today’s UC campus body would be well served to recall these lessons.
There is in fact no better place for unfettered free speech than a university
campus, and students who spend their four-plus years in college without
encountering provocation or offense won’t be adequately prepared for life in
the real world. Students should recognize a censorship-lite approach like
Napolitano’s for what it is: an attack on the idea of the university as a safe
haven for all kinds of speech.
“It also represents an absurd dumbing-down of the concepts of racism and
sexism. Contrary to what the seminar materials assert, exclaiming, ‘Wow! How
did you become so good at math?’ is not an act of aggression—micro or
otherwise. It’s a compliment. Shouldn’t students feel free to compare
math-learning strategies without risking the wrath of the PC police?”
Clarity
of Thought
“Ever since
Kindergarten, we Americans are taught to cherish the Freedom of speech that our
country provides; it is the very essence of the life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness that our founding fathers promised. What our country fails to
understand, however, is that freedom of speech includes the right to offend
other people, no matter their shape, race, accent, or office. If anyone knows
anything about censorship and free speech, it’s George Orwell, an author known
for his shrewd political criticism. He shared with the world that ‘If liberty
means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want
to hear.’ After all, the third amendment in our nation’s Bill of Rights reads
plain and simply, ‘Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of
speech,’ and nowhere does it make mention of any exceptions. If only society
could foster an environment that truly appreciates this value in every sense of
the word, our world would be a more honest place.”
Related Post
Pitchforks & Torches: 9 Excesses of the #MeToo Movement http://www.mybestbuddymedia.com/2018/05/pitchforks-torches-9-excesses-of-metoo.html
Photo: https://www.imagekind.com/Thought-Police_art?IMID=9bb03ea4-04f3-40c9-b0d0-0416b01086f7
Jerry De Luca is a Christian freelance writer who loves perusing dozens of interesting and informative publications. When he finds any useful info he summarizes it, taking the main points, and creates a (hopefully) helpful blog post.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave any comments...